On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 04:39:49AM +1000, Kim Lester wrote:
> Some of the ideas I have implemented include a "pkg info" file in each
> package
> containing the
> pathname
> uid, gid (numeric)
> md5sum,
> size (useful to humans)
> mode
> symlink target (for syml
On Wednesday 08 October 2003 09:04, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> 'chown -R ...' accidentally excuted in the wrong directory comes to
> my mind. Or filesystem corruption after a hard crash.
But then not only files from packages, but also user files are subject of
corruption. Using a tool like integrit
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 12:24:37AM +1000, Kim Lester wrote:
>> There is no way to verify/correct the MODE, USER, GROUP, TYPE
>> of any files installed in a pkg.
>> If I am wrong please point out where, with an installed pkg
>> (and preferably without hav
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 12:24:37AM +1000, Kim Lester wrote:
> There is no way to verify/correct the MODE, USER, GROUP, TYPE
> of any files installed in a pkg.
> If I am wrong please point out where, with an installed pkg
> (and preferably without having a copy of the .dpkg around)
> once can tell
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 12:24:37AM +1000, Kim Lester wrote:
> There is no way to verify/correct the MODE, USER, GROUP, TYPE
> of any files installed in a pkg.
That appears to be the case, partly because permissions may be changed
from those files which are contained withing the .deb file via t
rds
kim
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 9:39 AM
> To: Fabien Ninoles
> Cc: Kim Lester; debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Package verification and "/usr/bin/install" tool
> replaceme
Hmmm...
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:38:30AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:42:36PM -0400, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
> > Although your proposition seems more complete, have you try
> > debsums and checksecurity? debsums with the following
> > feature in /etc/apt/apt.conf
> >
> >
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:42:36PM -0400, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
> Although your proposition seems more complete, have you try
> debsums and checksecurity? debsums with the following
> feature in /etc/apt/apt.conf
>
> DPkg::Post-Invoke {
> "debsums --generate=nocheck -sp /var/cache/apt/arc
Kim Lester wrote:
Although debian packages may contain md5sums it seems package
verification is
not available (unless I have missed something).
Although your proposition seems more complete, have you try
debsums and checksecurity? debsums with the following
feature in /etc/apt/apt.conf
DPkg
this latter group
My solution does.
regards
kim
> -Original Message-
> From: Rene Engelhard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 5:45 AM
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Package verification and "/usr/bin/install"
Hi,
Kim Lester wrote:
> Although debian packages may contain md5sums it seems package
> verification is
> not available (unless I have missed something).
Probably you missed debsums...
Grüße/Regards,
René
--
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :'
Although debian packages may contain md5sums it seems package
verification is
not available (unless I have missed something).
Also I find the traditional /usr/bin/install type tools rather
primitive.
As I understand it a debian pkg relies on information in the tar
archive itself
to store this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 13.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Or, thirdly, we use pristine sources iff they are in supported
> formats, or else the upstream source is massaged into a supported
> format, and BIG signs are posted pointing to the real sources and the
> st
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
: BTW: Do you know anybody who really needs to put all the tools needed
: to build source packages onto floppies? :-)
Yes, I do. A friend has an older laptop that has a floppy drive, and that's
his only current path of getting bits in and out. He may
Hi,
>>"Jim" == Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Might it be possible to, say, have a list of `supported formats' --
>> .tar.gz, .zip, others? -- and at least give the option of
>> downloading upstream sources which were originally in other formats
>> as a tarball? This is far from ideal, fo
> How about where part of the upstream archive could go into the main
> distribution, but part needs to go into non-free or non-US, even for the
> sources?
>
> That's a case where you _must_ repack the original archive.
>
>
> MfG Kai
No. I'd just say upload the upstream sources to the non
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Mortimer) wrote on 13.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On May 12, Jim Pick wrote
> >
> > Excellent write-up, Klee. Thanks for doing it.
>
> I second this; a lot of thought has obviously gone into this, and it
> shows!
Me too!
> > > * [1.1] It must be possible to recon
> > Please clarify - unpacking a Debian source package is different
> > than unpacking an upstream source package (which may require tar,
> > unzip, zoo, lha, jar, etc.). Right?
Andy Mortimer wrote:
> Personally, I'd be inclined to disagree here, especially given [1.5]
> below. If I've gone to
July first.
>
> If source packages were just a specialized format of the binary package
> format - they could be handled the same way, and using the same tools.
> Ask Guy which part of the tree is more consistant and easier to handle
> - the source code part or the binary packages p
I'd rather avoid the sum(1) checksum, because there are two implementations
of sum(1), the BSD and SYSV, that output different checksums for the same
data. Too many people will get confused when they see the wrong sum.
Bruce
--
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pixar Animation Studios
Bruce said, regarding Packages file info:
> I think a field with the size _and_ MD5 checksum on the same line would
> be helpful. We don't collect this information anywhere else, to my knowledge.
The sum(1) checksum might also be useful. I know that sum(1) has been
characterized here as "totally
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I suppose we could put the file size in the Packages file; it just
> might get a bit cluttered with all of this information. What do
> people feel about this ?
I think a field with the size _and_ MD5 checksum on the same line would
be helpful. We don't coll
brian white writes ("Re: Package Verification "):
> This is fine, but it doesn't help with verifying packages on
> non-Debian systems as is required by people who must do an actual FTP
> >from another machine. As for the format, feel free to alter it. I
> figure
e:
>> checksum: d14d384e0895986bc9f2b09f0a8b84fc (295393)
>>
>> The reason for this is so programs like 'dftp' can verify that they
>> retrieved the packages correctly before attempting to install them.
>
>Eventually dpkg will have its own support for package
brian white writes ("Package Verification "):
> I'd like to suggest another field to be automatically added to the
> "Packages" files that exist at the top of each hierarchy in the
> distribution. I'd like to see a "Checksum:" field that can
I'd like to suggest another field to be automatically added to the
"Packages" files that exist at the top of each hierarchy in the
distribution. I'd like to see a "Checksum:" field that can be used to
verify the correct download of these packages. I think including both
an 'md5sum' and a (filesiz
26 matches
Mail list logo
